DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

condone the aforesaid delay. The appeal is, thus, taken up for disposal on merits. 4.3 It is observed that while processing the return of income, the AO has levied minimum alternate tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.2,47,61,511/- Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant has contended that

VIVEK SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION - 1,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1134 & 1135/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Vivek Shiksha Samiti Jobner Road, Kalwar, VIA Jhotwara, Jaipur. cuke Vs. The ITO, Exemption-1, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABTV0361Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gatum Singh Choudhary

condone the Vivek Shiksha Samiti vs. ITO (E) dealy in filling the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 12. Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee relates to the charging of the assessee trust income at MMR. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that since

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condoned delay in preferring appeal by assessee and decide case on merits - Held, yes[Paras 23 to 25] [In favour of assessee] In view of aforesaid facts, it is submitted that in the instant case there is sufficient cause with assessee on account of which appeal could not be filed on time. Even if ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

delay of 10 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 5. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds of appeal

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay and granting the registration from retrospective effect if the trust is carrying on the activities in accordance with its deed and other conditions are being duly complied with. 1.8. It is respectfully submitted that amendment brought in section 12A and explanatory notes thereon, even is a assessee gets registration u/s 12A at a later stage, and there

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay wherein the Bench does not find any sufficient and reasonable cause for late filing the appeal by the assessee. Hence, the same is dismissed. 3.1 Now the Bench feels that the case of the assessee should also be adjudicated upon on merit wherein the crux of the issue in the appeal relates to late deposit of employees

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

delay on the part of trust to give notice of such accumulation, the assessee trust had complied with all the requirements stipulated by the provisions of section 11(2) of the IT Act 24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KapurchandShrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 held that appellate authority has jurisdiction and (duty to correct

RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

delay on the part of trust to give notice of such accumulation, the assessee trust had complied with all the requirements stipulated by the provisions of section 11(2) of the IT Act 24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KapurchandShrimal v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 451 held that appellate authority has jurisdiction and (duty to correct

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

section 139- which needs to be interpreted in wider connotation) and thus delay in filing of Audit Report is condoned by CBDT Circular; - Assessee is holding valid registration certificate u/s 12AA, and there is no allegation of any violation of conditions enumerated u/s 12AA(3), therefore assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 11. - Assessee, during assessment proceedings itself filed

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 1560/JP/2024

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 1560/JP/2024

SHAILENDRA GARG,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 1560/JP/2024

SHAILENDRA GARG,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

24,535, business promotion expenses Rs.15,015 & vehicle expenses Rs.1,47,989/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C Rs.1.00 lac 1554/JP/24 2014-15 NFAC Delhi, dated 31-08- Dismissed the appeal 426 days 2023 condonation of holding that delay in delay of 727 days not filing of appeal is not allowed and dismissed condoned, appeal the appeal dismissed 1560/JP/2024